DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement

settlement.status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a previous DPX settlement by settlement ID. Returns the full audit record: status, tx hash, amounts, fees, oracle conditions at time of settlement, ESG score, Claude AI reasoning, and timestamp.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`settlementId`	Yes	Settlement ID from the settlement.execute tool (format: dpx_...)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`httpStatus`	No	HTTP status from Settlement Agent
`settlement`	No

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context by specifying the return fields (status, tx hash, amounts, fees, oracle conditions, ESG score, Claude AI reasoning, timestamp), which provides behavioral expectations beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the action and objective, the second lists the output fields. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 1-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description covers the action, input, and return structure. It doesn't discuss potential errors or permissions, but given the annotations (read-only, non-destructive), these are low risk. Slight deduction for not mentioning what happens if the settlement ID is invalid.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's mention of 'Settlement ID from the settlement.execute tool (format: dpx_...)' matches the schema's description. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('previous DPX settlement') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like settlement.execute, settlement.quote, and settlement.nl. It explicitly states the output (full audit record) and lists key fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieval of previously executed settlements but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though the sibling list makes the differentiation implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DPX — Institutional Cross-Border Settlement tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially within their domains (e.g., analytics, compliance, ESG, forecasting). However, a few tools like route and stability.stablecoin_route or settlement.quote and fx.cost_certainty may cause confusion despite distinct descriptions, and the large number of intelligence tools (cascade, aftershock, contagion, etc.) could lead to misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a domain prefix pattern (e.g., agent.kya_register, settlement.quote, esg.score), which provides some structure. However, inconsistencies exist: some tools use underscores (batch_settle, flow_check), others are single words (route), and the mix of verb_noun and noun_verb styles (e.g., compliance.pep_screen vs market.fx) reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 71 tools, the server is very broad in scope, covering compliance, ESG, forecasting, intelligence, treasury management, and more. While each tool seems justified for the complex institutional domain, the sheer number may overwhelm agents and makes the set feel bloated. A more focused scope or tighter tool grouping would improve appropriateness.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for cross-border settlement, covering end-to-end workflow from quoting, FX analysis, compliance screening, ESG scoring, forecasting, and multiple payment rails (Mercury, Ramp, SWIFT). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update a settlement after execution), but core operations are well-covered, and the addition of integration and audit trails enhances completeness.

Resources

Need Help?